2. Living conditions

There are important differences between countries that have achieved the most noticeable progress in the sphere of economic development. The best EAEU performers, the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan, receive high marks primarily due to high electric energy consumption that reveals economic activity hidden by formal estimations of GDP. In the LAC region, the Bahamas and Chile are characterized by high adjusted real net national income per capita; in this regard, the former country’s level is comparable to that of Qatar, while that of the latter country is only around half that and is comparable to the level of Turkey. In Panama, the third-best performer, the best results from the economic sphere include a high employment level and a large degree of trade openness. At the other extreme, the economic aspect of inclusive development has been hindered in Kyrgyzstan by low per capita income and in Armenia by low employment presumably stemming from the high incidence of informal economic activities. Unemployment has been an impediment to inclusivity in the LAC region as well, especially in countries such as Saint Lucia, Haiti and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Haiti also has one of the world’s lowest levels of electricity consumption, adjusted for per capita GDP and net income. Notably, none of the countries under consideration is estimated to be close to the world advanced economy average. However, the developing state average, comparable to the estimates registered for Peru and Uruguay, has been outstripped by slightly fewer than half of the economies under consideration.

2. Living conditions

The indicators reflecting quality of life show relatively limited correlation with those in the preceding economic pillar, with a different set of countries performing well. (The Bahamas –the LAC leader according to the economic development pillar – cannot be assessed in the following two pillars due to a lack of data.) Despite a good performance in per capita income, employment level and other economic activity indicators, neither the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan, nor Chile and Panama demonstrate comparable success in access to healthcare, educational and communication services, or environmental conditions. Much of the low performance level within EAEU can be attributed to the high levels of CO2 emissions. According to this indicator, the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan are ranked 121st and 126th, respectively, out of 129 countries. Ecological concerns are urgent for Chile as well, whereas potential improvements in quality of life in Panama are concentrated in ensuring access to educational and financial services (see table IV.3).

Table IV.3 Eurasian Economic Union and Latin America and the Caribbean: ranking according to all indicators for living conditions, 2018 (Ranking out of 129 observations)

5 Under mortality rate People using safe water source School enrolment, secondary overage of C essential health services Fixed Internet broadband subscriptions Logistics performance index bank Access to account or money mobile services CO2 emissions iving l Total, conditions

Armenia 63 88 75 66 65 83 80 74 78

Belarus Kazakhstan

19 37 39 45 19 91 46 111 40 58 46 18 53 57 66 68 126 67 Kyrgyzstan 80 84 54 70 83 95 100 122 89 Russian Federation 44 71 34 82 44 70 52 121 64 Argentina 59 17 43 33 50 57 78 86 50 Bolivia (Plur. State of) 94 75 68 88 87 113 73 92 87

Brazil Colombia Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mexico Panama

5 Under mortality rate People using safe water source School enrolment, secondary overage of C essential health services Fixed Internet broadband subscriptions Logistics performance index bank Access to account or money mobile services CO2 emissions iving l Total, conditions

71 59 58 28 58 52 60 49 48 70 79 52 33 60 54 83 30 57 54 55 11 40 52 68 64 27 41 68 73 90 28 78 90 113 41 77 86 87 108 93 86 109 89 53 93 79 78 106 78 91 84 86 89 90 66 98 49 33 59 47 103 79 68 76 69 88 40 64 36 82 24 58

Paraguay

81 43 89 61 84 69 79 7 69 Uruguay 50 36 23 21 34 79 65 17 34 Venezuela (Bol. Rep. of) 89 61 84 47 72 120 56 119 82 Chile 41 22 50 55 51 32 54 71 39 Dominica 93 63 57 45 27 80 71 72 55 Ecuador 68 72 26 40 66 58 74 77 61 Jamaica 74 74 86 88 71 98 26 104 76

Source: Eurasian Economic Commission and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (EEC/UNCTAD), “Inclusive growth of the Eurasian Economic Union Member States: assessments and opportunities”, 2019 [online] http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/integr_i_makroec/dep_makroec_pol/Documents/Inclusive_growth_in_ EAEU_Member.pdf. Note: Green and light green is used to reflect a better position in the overall ranking. Orange to red colour indicates a worst position among 129 observations.

Countries that perform well in the quality of life pillar do not generally coincide with those performing well in the economic pillar. To illustrate, in the LAC region, the proportion of adults having bank accounts and the incidence of fixed broadband subscriptions in Uruguay and Chile are more than 50% above Panama levels. Other strong indicators of the two countries are universal health services coverage (79% in Uruguay, which is comparable to Belgium, the United Kingdom or Switzerland) and excellent access to safe water. Belarus, which has the highest rating for quality of living in EAEU, has other advantages over the previously mentioned LAC countries. These include a low under-5 mortality rate (3.6 cases per 1000 live births, like that of Germany) and a high incidence of broadband subscriptions comparable to that of the United States or Australia (33.5 subscriptions per 100 people). To analyse inclusive development in detail, it is good to look at some of the drivers of those ranked first and those ranked last. For example, it is worth noting that poor access to financial services and environmental issues are the most problematic aspects of living conditions in Kyrgyzstan. Similarly, impediments to living conditions in Guatemala do not coincide with the best performers’ strengths, but rather focus on low school enrolment and weak logistics performance. None of the countries under consideration have reached the average of developed economies. At the same time, the number of States that outperform the developing countries’ average in the quality of life pillar is far greater than in the economic pillar. Notably, the EAEU country with the least progress in the economic pillar, Armenia, has a higher quality of life than the average developing country.